We’re back to a slightly more normal week this week, with all of the venues for the upcoming round already locked in, so we can feel a little more confident about the ladder simulations as they stand.

And what we find in those simulations is that, using the Standard Methodology, we still have nine teams that have a better than 1-in-3 shot at playing Finals, and seven that have about a 1-in-2 or better shot. There are also five teams that have roughly a 1-in-3 shot or better at the Top 4.

Under the Heretical Methodology, there are also nine teams that have a better than 1-in-3 shot at playing Finals, and only seven that have about a 1-in-2 or better shot. There are only four teams, however, that have a better than 1-in-3 shot or better at the Top 4.

I’ve updated the simulations to reflect the venues for Rounds 17 and 18, and the results are shown below.

The latest simulation results come with something of an asterisk given the uncertainly still surrounding the fixturing for the remainder of the season. For the purposes of these simulations, I’ve assumed that all remaining matches are played at the venues as currently set down, although I realise that this mightn’t be true even for the Round 17 games.

That said, the likely impacts of any variation to the gazetted fixturing is likely to be small, and the competition is at such an interesting point, that I think some simulations are better than none at all.

(I’ll update it, time permitting later in the week once the venues for Round 17 are locked in)

To me - and I admit I might be in a small echoey theatre all but alone in applauding on this one - it’s fascinating to watch how the markets respond to a result from a game involving the top teams, and to compare it to how emotionless models respond to that same result. The Dogs’ loss to the Cats in Round 14 has provided a perfect example of this.

But, more on that in a moment.

In the meantime, based on the latest Standard Methodology simulations, we still have 11 teams that have a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, and eight that have about a 2-in-3 or better shot. There are also five teams that have roughly a 1-in-2 shot or better at the Top 4.

Under the Heretical Methodology, there are also 11 teams that have a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, and also eight that have about a 2-in-3 or better shot. There are also five teams that have a roughly 1-in-2 shot or better at the Top 4.

In the latest Standard Method simulations, we are up to 11 teams that have a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, and eight that have a 2-in-3 or better shot. There are also five teams that have a better than 1-in-3 shot at the Top 4.

Under the Heretical Methodology, there are also 11 teams that have a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, but just seven that have a 2-in-3 or better shot (with Sydney just missing out). There are also five teams that have a better than 1-in-3 shot at the Top 4.

In the latest Standard Method simulations, we are now down to 10 teams that have a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, and eight that have a 3-in-5 or better shot. There are also five teams that have a better than 4-in-9 shot at the Top 4.

Under the Heretical Methodology, there are also 10 teams that have a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, but just seven that have a 3-in-5 or better shot. There are also five teams that have a better than 4-in-9 shot at the Top 4.

In the latest Standard Method simulations, eleven teams now have a better than 1-in-4 shot at playing Finals, and six a better than 1-in-5 shot at finishing Top 4. Under the Heretical Methodology, the equivalent numbers are the same.

If we raise the cutoff to having a better than even chance, both methodologies now have 7 teams meeting this bar for a shot at Finals, and 3 meeting it for a shot at Top 4.

(For details about the methodologies I’ve used, see this earlier blog. Note that I have assumed no change in fixturing for the remainder of the season. In hindsight, I should probably at least have switched St Kilda into home team status for their return clash with Sydney later in the season)

With the change in venue for two of this week’s games, there are some small changes in the simulation results, as shown below.

A dozen teams still have a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, but only five a better than 1-in-5 shot at finishing Top 4, according to the latest round of simulations using the Standard Methodology. Under the Heretical Methodology, the equivalent numbers are the same.

If we raise the cutoff to having a better than even chance, both methodologies still have 8 teams meeting this bar for a shot at Finals, and 3 meeting it for a shot at Top 4.

(For details about the methodologies I’ve used, see this earlier blog)

The latest round of Standard Methodology home-and-away simulations still has 12 teams with a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, and now 8 teams with a better than 1-in-5 shot at finishing Top 4. Even under the Heretical Methodology, which (as by now I’m sure you know) tends to push probability estimates closer to 0 and 1, there are 11 teams with a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, and 8 teams with a better than 1-in-5 shot at finishing Top 4.

The latest round of Standard Methodology home-and-away simulations still has 12 teams with a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals (down 1), and 7 teams with a better than 1-in-5 shot at finishing Top 4 (also down 1). Even under the Heretical Methodology, which tends to push probability estimates closer to 0 and 1, there are 12 teams with a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals (no change), and 7 teams with a better than 1-in-5 shot at finishing Top 4 (also no change).

On that basis, it seems very unlikely that this year’s Finalists have, in any way, been largely determined.

The latest round of Standard Methodology home-and-away simulations has 13 teams with a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, and 8 teams with a better than 1-in-5 shot at finishing Top 4. Even under the Heretical Methodology, which tends to push probability estimates closer to 0 and 1, there are 12 teams with a better than 1-in-5 shot at playing Finals, and 7 teams with a better than 1-in-5 shot at finishing Top 4.

The latest round of home-and-away simulations still hint at a very competitive season, at least in the context of Finals places.

The latest round of home-and-away simulations is highlighting just what a competitive year we seem likely to have, at least in terms of the number of teams still with reasonable chances of playing Finals.

As chance-changing rounds go, I think the latest one was amongst the most change-inducing.

With almost 10% of the home-and-away season completed (truly), let’s review the latest MoSHBODS-based simulations and see what they suggest about the relative chances for the teams of playing Finals football.

The first round results have changed most people’s estimates of many of the 18 team’s chances of playing Finals football, and they’ve changed MoSHBODS’ estimates, too.

Around this time last season I created my first ever pre-season simulation of the final home-and-away ladder. We all saw the enduring value that had, so I thought I’d do it again this year.

Again I’ll be using two methodologies, which I call Standard and Heretical, and that are described below. Hopefully this year we’ll be able to compare and contrast these two approaches for a full 23 rounds.

Perhaps never more than this year, have assumptions about the effects on teams’ chances of where Finals are being played been more important.

With the venues (and teams) for the two Semi Finals now determined, along with the venues for both Preliminary Finals, a few more sources of variability have been removed from any projections of the Finals series.